Changes

''Akahele'' readers may recall my [http://akahele.org/2009/03/persistence_of_misinfo/ earlier essay] which briefly mentioned an [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study extensive study] of the one hundred biographical Wikipedia articles about the United States senators.  The research team of unofficial Wikipedia watchdogs discovered over 600 falsehoods and defamatory attacks in these articles over the course of the final quarter (October through December) of 2007.  Most of the vandalized edits were reverted within a minute or two.  However, many of them endured for hours at time.  Some for several days.  And a few persisted for weeks on end.

''Akahele'' readers may recall my [http://akahele.org/2009/03/persistence_of_misinfo/ earlier essay] which briefly mentioned an [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study extensive study] of the one hundred biographical Wikipedia articles about the United States senators.  The research team of unofficial Wikipedia watchdogs discovered over 600 falsehoods and defamatory attacks in these articles over the course of the final quarter (October through December) of 2007.  Most of the vandalized edits were reverted within a minute or two.  However, many of them endured for hours at time.  Some for several days.  And a few persisted for weeks on end.

But, no matter how hateful or how libelous the edit, no matter how long it persists on Wikipedia, the folks who own and operate Wikipedia's servers who have the ultimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions editorial control] over what stays and what gets jettisoned from important portions of the website, are virtually free from liability.  This is thanks to [http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230 Section 230] of the Communications Decency Act, which I feel is due for a serious legal challenge or legislative revamp at some point soon.

But, no matter how hateful or how libelous the edit, no matter how long it persists on Wikipedia, the folks who own and operate Wikipedia's servers who have the ultimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions editorial control] over what stays and what gets jettisoned from important portions of the website, are virtually free from liability.  This is thanks to [http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230 Section 230] of the Communications Decency Act, which I feel is due for a serious legal challenge or legislative revamp at some point soon.

'''Sorry, Max'''

===Sorry, Max===

One edit that was captured during the U.S. Senate biography audit persisted not for weeks, but for months.  In fact, nearly a year passed before it was finally amended.

One edit that was captured during the U.S. Senate biography audit persisted not for weeks, but for months.  In fact, nearly a year passed before it was finally amended.

 

[[Image:Max-baucus.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Max Baucus]]

 

<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/max-baucus.jpg" alt="" /></td>

<td class="photocaption">Senator Max Baucus</td>

For that entire time, for every reader of that Wikipedia passage, the reputation of Senator Max Baucus (Democrat, Montana) was tarnished to some degree.  Today, I'd like to take you on a deeper dive into that edit.

For that entire time, for every reader of that Wikipedia passage, the reputation of Senator Max Baucus (Democrat, Montana) was tarnished to some degree.  Today, I'd like to take you on a deeper dive into that edit.

Senator Baucus has not yet responded to an invitation to comment about this long-term incident.  I will update this post if he does respond, or he is of course welcome to comment below.

Senator Baucus has not yet responded to an invitation to comment about this long-term incident.  I will update this post if he does respond, or he is of course welcome to comment below.

'''The Lieberman factor'''

===The Lieberman factor===

Supporters of Wikipedia's apparent legal right to host libelous and defamatory content would argue that "the vast majority" of Wikipedia vandalism is fixed very quickly, and they would also express an apologist viewpoint along the lines of, "The staff and board of the Wikimedia Foundation can't be expected to editorially control every article about the United States senators, much less all the biographies of living people on Wikipedia."

Supporters of Wikipedia's apparent legal right to host libelous and defamatory content would argue that "the vast majority" of Wikipedia vandalism is fixed very quickly, and they would also express an apologist viewpoint along the lines of, "The staff and board of the Wikimedia Foundation can't be expected to editorially control every article about the United States senators, much less all the biographies of living people on Wikipedia."

Who protected the Lieberman biography that day?  None other than Wikipedia's co-founder and board member, Jimmy Wales.

Who protected the Lieberman biography that day?  None other than Wikipedia's co-founder and board member, Jimmy Wales.

 

[[Image:jimmy-wales-with-cookie.jpg|thumb|left|Jimmy Wales, nibbling]]

 

<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/jimmy-wales-with-cookie.jpg" alt="" /></td>

<td class="photocaption">Jimmy Wales, nibbling</td>

Why did Wales protect Lieberman from defamatory and libelous edits for five hours that specific day?  Simple!  That was the morning when Jimmy Wales had been invited to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odvr4w2gMJY provide testimony] to a Senate sub-committee.  He spoke about topics related to the possible introduction of wikis into government communications.  Guess who chaired that sub-committee?  None other than Joe Lieberman.

Why did Wales protect Lieberman from defamatory and libelous edits for five hours that specific day?  Simple!  That was the morning when Jimmy Wales had been invited to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odvr4w2gMJY provide testimony] to a Senate sub-committee.  He spoke about topics related to the possible introduction of wikis into government communications.  Guess who chaired that sub-committee?  None other than Joe Lieberman.

More than five hours later, Wikipedia administrator and search engine marketer, [http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/about/ Jonathan Hochman] would finally discover and revert that stroke of vandalism against his fellow native son of the Nutmeg State.  Before we paint Hochman a hero, though, do note that his rescue of Lieberman's heterosexual manhood that day is only one data point within a [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ long string of discoveries and reversals] regarding Lieberman's persona on Wikipedia.

More than five hours later, Wikipedia administrator and search engine marketer, [http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/about/ Jonathan Hochman] would finally discover and revert that stroke of vandalism against his fellow native son of the Nutmeg State.  Before we paint Hochman a hero, though, do note that his rescue of Lieberman's heterosexual manhood that day is only one data point within a [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ long string of discoveries and reversals] regarding Lieberman's persona on Wikipedia.

'''Studying the vandalism'''

===Studying the vandalism===

It was a lot of hard work for those of us who organized and conducted that volunteer study of the vandalism perpetrated against the 100 Wikipedia articles about the senators.  We had hoped that our research results would be picked up by the blogosphere, perhaps by the mainstream media, or even come to the attention of the Senate itself.  Sadly, with a [http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001391.html few] small [http://digg.com/politics/McCain_raped_wife_Obama_a_nudist_and_Hillary_has_a_penis exceptions], the study hasn't gained traction in the media.  One noted Wikipedia apologist even called our effort "comical".

It was a lot of hard work for those of us who organized and conducted that volunteer study of the vandalism perpetrated against the 100 Wikipedia articles about the senators.  We had hoped that our research results would be picked up by the blogosphere, perhaps by the mainstream media, or even come to the attention of the Senate itself.  Sadly, with a [http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001391.html few] small [http://digg.com/politics/McCain_raped_wife_Obama_a_nudist_and_Hillary_has_a_penis exceptions], the study hasn't gained traction in the media.  One noted Wikipedia apologist even called our effort "comical".

It's not every day that one's work enters the international college curriculum, and that's some comfort to offset the fact that the 100 U.S. senators don't seem themselves terribly concerned about their being libeled perpetually on Wikipedia.

It's not every day that one's work enters the international college curriculum, and that's some comfort to offset the fact that the 100 U.S. senators don't seem themselves terribly concerned about their being libeled perpetually on Wikipedia.

<h4>Image credits:</h4>

 

    <li><span style="color: #000000;">Max Baucus, from the Senator's [http://baucus.senate.gov/about/index.cfm website], [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span></li>

===Image credits===

    <li><span style="color: #000000;">Jimmy Wales, by [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Wales_Tim_Tam_01.JPG Wikipedia user "One Salient Oversight"], public domain.</span></li>

*Max Baucus, from the Senator's [http://baucus.senate.gov/about/index.cfm website], [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].

*Jimmy Wales, by [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Wales_Tim_Tam_01.JPG Wikipedia user "One Salient Oversight"], public domain.

==Comments==

==Comments==

;Cheryl Kohs       

 

:Better to be perpetually libeled than ignored!

:And that goes for just about anyone in the public eye, these days.

 

:Sad, but true.

Cheryl Kohs       

;Jon Awbrey       

Better to be perpetually libeled than ignored!

:Thanks for a first-rate example of the sort of info-lit critique that we should be seeing out there — but so seldom do.

 

;Kato       

And that goes for just about anyone in the public eye, these days.

:Great article.

 

:That Lieberman incident is a really good example of Wikipedia’s negligence in practice, and shows just how avoidable these things actually are. I wrote about it back in early 2008.

Sad, but true.

:http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/

 

:What was interesting is that when I mentioned it subsequently during another discussion, a Wikipedia administrator instinctively dismissed the story as false hyperbole. However, when the admin took a closer look at the facts, he realized that Jimmy Wales had actually framed his actions in that way, and there was no additional hyperbole from me or other critics.

Jon Awbrey       

:Wales protected Lieberman’s article during Wales’s Senate hearing chaired by Lieberman, citing “Not a good day for vandalism”. He dutifully unprotected the article after he had left the building.

Thanks for a first-rate example of the sort of info-lit critique that we should be seeing out there — but so seldom do.

:Well what is a good day for vandalism? Presumably any time that doesn’t inconvenience Wales himself.

 

;ManWithYoYo       

Kato       

:Nice article.  But you are missing the point, guys.  Trying to show the Senate the errors of Wikipedia is a non-starter.  They know the drill.  First of all, as all of you doubtless know, Wales gives testimony to the DHS Committee chaired by Lieberman.  There’s some ties there.  He’s got an in.  The Senate knows what’s going on on that site.  They aren’t terribly upset about it, as it seems that you are trying to bring to their attention.  Beyond this, Senator Baucus is Chairman of the Finance Committee, which is all-powerful, of course, in, among other things, Wall-Street-related matters.  The topics that irk your group do *not* irk the Finance Committee, i.e. market predation, i.e. NSS.

Great article.

:I’m not saying that your attempts aren’t well-founded.  They are.  It’s just that the Senate isn’t functioning in the manner that one would normally expect.  In particular, those two Committees.

 

:That’s my take, take it or leave it.  I think that you’ll find more sympathetic ears elsewhere.  That’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is.

That Lieberman incident is a really good example of Wikipedia’s negligence in practice, and shows just how avoidable these things actually are. I wrote about it back in early 2008.

 

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/

 

What was interesting is that when I mentioned it subsequently during another discussion, a Wikipedia administrator instinctively dismissed the story as false hyperbole. However, when the admin took a closer look at the facts, he realized that Jimmy Wales had actually framed his actions in that way, and there was no additional hyperbole from me or other critics.

 

Wales protected Lieberman’s article during Wales’s Senate hearing chaired by Lieberman, citing “Not a good day for vandalism”. He dutifully unprotected the article after he had left the building.

 

Well what is a good day for vandalism? Presumably any time that doesn’t inconvenience Wales himself.

 

ManWithYoYo       

Nice article.  But you are missing the point, guys.  Trying to show the Senate the errors of Wikipedia is a non-starter.  They know the drill.  First of all, as all of you doubtless know, Wales gives testimony to the DHS Committee chaired by Lieberman.  There’s some ties there.  He’s got an in.  The Senate knows what’s going on on that site.  They aren’t terribly upset about it, as it seems that you are trying to bring to their attention.  Beyond this, Senator Baucus is Chairman of the Finance Committee, which is all-powerful, of course, in, among other things, Wall-Street-related matters.  The topics that irk your group do *not* irk the Finance Committee, i.e. market predation, i.e. NSS.

 

I’m not saying that your attempts aren’t well-founded.  They are.  It’s just that the Senate isn’t functioning in the manner that one would normally expect.  In particular, those two Committees.

 

That’s my take, take it or leave it.  I think that you’ll find more sympathetic ears elsewhere.  That’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is.